Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Content Count

    11,115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. If your bylaws don't specify which or if a VP should preside, or if neither one objects, anyone may preside as a president pro-tem for that meeting, but the assembly should vote on that first.
  2. Please post new questions in a new topic, as instructed by
  3. RONR recommends that vice presidents be numbered, i.e. First VP, Second VP, etc., so that the rules about presiding at meetings and succeeding to office can be clearly interpreted. Otherwise, any rules would have to be included in your bylaws, by you.
  4. I do not agree that this clearly requires agreement of 2/3 of the entire membership, although it is admittedly a badly written rule. If the requirement is a 2/3 vote, then the word "majority" does not belong there. And I concur with Mr. Martin that the mention of the membership is likely just to confirm which group must hold the vote However, while a "majority" vote means more than half. a 2/3 vote does not mean more than 2/3. It means 2/3 or more.
  5. For ordinary societies, you can go into executive session at any time for any reason you deem advisable. For public bodies, State sunshine laws will set limits on what can and can't be done in executive session. I'm not clear why you believe executive session will get you through an agenda any quicker that not. The only difference is that the content of the executive session is kept confidential. If there's no need for secrecy, there's no need for executive session, and the speed that business gets done should be the same in either case.
  6. No. Matters concerning voting are decided by the assembly that actually votes. The board cannot set the rules under which they themselves are elected (unless your constitution is quite unusual). And they would not be allowed to infringe on the rights of members to nominate from the floor. The board has only the powers that are granted to them in the constitution/bylaws. But there's more: unless the bylaws authorize e-mail voting, it is prohibited entirely. So even the general membership can't authorize it, unless they do so by the process of amending the bylaws. And if the bylaws require ballot voting that's going to be hard to accomplish via e-mail. How would you plan to preserve the secrecy inherent in a ballot vote, if cast by e-mail?
  7. If the rules in RONR apply, ex-officio members of a body have all the rights of membership including voting. Since your bylaws remove the right to vote, I would assume that the other rights remain. But I am not a member of your organization, and each organization must interpret its own bylaws, where ambiguities exist. I can tell you that if I were the CPP chair, and had no right to vote, to speak, to make motions, or to give information, leaving me only the right to sit there like a lump, I don't think I would make it to many meetings. đŸ˜·
  8. That's certainly true, but if a continuing breach is created, there's no telling what might happen as the result of a change of heart or future new member. Ever is a long time.
  9. Can't help. I'm not set to receive e-mails for new content, so I only get notifications when I log in.
  10. Unless your bylaws authorize electronic meetings, this is not a properly-called meeting, and no such expenses may be approved, nor reports received.
  11. I have not run across the use of an "Apology" for absences, but I agree that it would not be recorded and would still count as an absence. For bodies that mandate attendance at meetings it is often the case that an anticipated absences is treated as a Request to be Excused from a Duty, which could be conveyed and moved by another member. In that case the motion and result would be recorded. This type of action would be appropriate in organizations where a certain number of "unexcused" absences would invoke some negative consequence.
  12. There are no such prohibitions.
  13. It should be evident from the contents of the motion itself whether or not it is intended to have lasting application, or to be a one-shot decision. If the wording is such that it would continue to apply to future situations, then it would essentially be a standing rule (unless it is a Special Rule of Order) whether or not it is published as "Official", but publishing it would be strongly advised. Special Rules of Order, which have lasting effect on the conduct of business in meetings are similarly durable, but they carry additional notice and threshold requirements for adoption.
  14. You do not vote on the main motion until you know for certain whether the secondary and primary amendments were adopted. In the case you presented, the secondary amendment is voted on, and if it is adopted, the language of the primary amendment is changed accordingly, otherwise the secondary amendment has no effect. Next, the primary amendment (possibly with the newly changed wording) is open for further debate and secondary amendments. When the language of the primary amendment is finalized, it is voted on, and if adopted, the language of the main motion is changed accordingly, otherwise the primary (and secondary) amendments have no effect. Finally, the main motion, when it comes up for a vote, is in the form that was determined by which amendments were agreed to and which were not. And it may be passed, or may be rejected.
  15. There is nothing special involved in "dealing with" ties. A tie vote is a vote like any other, and since it is less than a majority, the Noes have it, and the motion is defeated. Nobody gets more than one vote.
  16. No, under the rules in RONR, a person can serve as many terms as the voters will support.
  17. A lot depends on what type of organization you are. The fact that the public is even present at all suggests that you may be some sort of public body, but I hesitate to guess. The fact that you have public comment at all suggests that you're working on a set of rules outside those in RONR. Perhaps a more complete description of your situation would help us.
  18. To initiate, only a motion and second is necessary. To pass, a majority vote is necessary. A transgression is merely nice-to-have, but it helps in gathering a majority.
  19. RONR is among the standard abbreviations used here. RRONR, to the best of my knowledge, is not.
  20. RONR does not have anything nice to say about so-called "consensus" decision-making. So "hoping for consensus" is not a part of proper procedure if the rules in RONR apply. Officers can participate fully if they are members of the body that is meeting. Why do the Secretary and VP not vote? Is there something in your bylaws that prevents their voting?
  21. Those members are incorrect. If RONR is your parliamentary authority, electronic meetings are expressly prohibited unless provided for in the bylaws.
×
×
  • Create New...